Wednesday
May202009
That US Strategy in Pakistan: A Bit of Money for Two Million Refugees
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 6:46
Video and Transcript: Clinton Press Briefing on Aid to Pakistan
Yesterday afternoon I drafted the passage, for an article for an electronic journal:
Even if one credited Obama's general proclamation of “a comprehensive strategy that doesn’t just rely on bullets or bombs, but also relies on agricultural specialists, on doctors, on engineers", military tactics undercut rather than supported that conception. In US-backed operations, civilians --- if they are recognised by Washington --- are offered not progress but sacrifice. As I write, up to 75 percent of the 1.3 million residents of Pakistan's Swat Valley are now refugees.
I have to make a revision to that paragraph: the latest estimates are that 2 million people, in and beyond the Swat Valley, have been displaced. However, my general point was powerfully endorsed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, in a press briefing, pledged $110 million in US funds ($100 million from the State Department and $10 million from the Department of Defense) for "this major humanitarian crisis". She added, "Providing this assistance is not only the right thing to do, but we believe it is essential to global security and the security of the United States, and we are prepared to do more as the situation demands."
So let me get this straight. The Pakistani military, pushed by the US Government, launches operations that prompt 2 million people to flee --- an exodus rivalled in Pakistan's history only during the 1948 partition from India --- but this forced homelessness becomes an example for the "civilian-led" dimension of the Obama Administration's strategy? Strikes me that is akin to the arsonist proving his merits by offering a few blankets after the fire has been set.
Of course, this crisis is not just a one-way affair: the Taliban's activities have also prompted residents to hide or take flight. And the crisis is mitigated, if you can mitigate the indefinite loss of a home, because an estimated 90 percent of the displaced are staying with families and friends rather than in camps.
I am still not convinced, however, that the 2 million will be testifying to Washington's long-term aim of economic progress and security if and when they hear Clinton's words about the power of US benevolence and technology:
Yesterday afternoon I drafted the passage, for an article for an electronic journal:Even if one credited Obama's general proclamation of “a comprehensive strategy that doesn’t just rely on bullets or bombs, but also relies on agricultural specialists, on doctors, on engineers", military tactics undercut rather than supported that conception. In US-backed operations, civilians --- if they are recognised by Washington --- are offered not progress but sacrifice. As I write, up to 75 percent of the 1.3 million residents of Pakistan's Swat Valley are now refugees.
I have to make a revision to that paragraph: the latest estimates are that 2 million people, in and beyond the Swat Valley, have been displaced. However, my general point was powerfully endorsed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, in a press briefing, pledged $110 million in US funds ($100 million from the State Department and $10 million from the Department of Defense) for "this major humanitarian crisis". She added, "Providing this assistance is not only the right thing to do, but we believe it is essential to global security and the security of the United States, and we are prepared to do more as the situation demands."
So let me get this straight. The Pakistani military, pushed by the US Government, launches operations that prompt 2 million people to flee --- an exodus rivalled in Pakistan's history only during the 1948 partition from India --- but this forced homelessness becomes an example for the "civilian-led" dimension of the Obama Administration's strategy? Strikes me that is akin to the arsonist proving his merits by offering a few blankets after the fire has been set.
Of course, this crisis is not just a one-way affair: the Taliban's activities have also prompted residents to hide or take flight. And the crisis is mitigated, if you can mitigate the indefinite loss of a home, because an estimated 90 percent of the displaced are staying with families and friends rather than in camps.
I am still not convinced, however, that the 2 million will be testifying to Washington's long-term aim of economic progress and security if and when they hear Clinton's words about the power of US benevolence and technology:
Now, Americans can use technology to help, as well. Using your cell phones, Americans can text the word 'swat' -- to the number 20222 and make a $5 contribution that will help the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees provide tents, clothing, food, and medicine to hundreds of thousands of affected people. And before I came over here, we did that in the State Department. So we are making some of the first donations to this fund.
Reader Comments (2)
I agree with your understanding the long-term consequences of the ongoing displacement of our fellow beings from SWAT and FATA agencies. This in infact a crises in the making if pro-active measures of all sorts, that is, educational facilities, social and economic steps are not taken.
So far, all Pakistanis are extending generously to meet the costs of the mega human dispalcement but ofcourse the bottlenecks and mismanagement is also there.
The dilemma for us is: Are we saving our future by striking militarily or other way round. And can PAKISTAN will be able to mitigate the long-term consequences of this mega human suffering on its own?
Shabana,
Thank you. I think you have put the questions powerfully (and with great concern). Please keep us informed.
S.